ANNUAL REPORT
TO THE FACULTY SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE
Annual Report,
2008-2009
April 13, 2009
Susan
Wilson-Sanders, Chair
Patricia B. Hoyer, Vice Chair
Judith Brown, Plant Sciences (5/08-5/11) CALS
Zhao Chen, Epidemiology and Biostatistics (5/07-5/10) MEZCOPH
Terence Connolly, Management and Organizations (5/07-5/10) ELLER
Amy H. Tsang Davis, Nursing (5/08-5/11) NUR
Marwan Krunz, Electrical & Computer Engineering (5/08-5/11) ENGR
Caryl Flinn, Women's Studies (5/03-5/09) SBS
Roberto Guzman, Chemical & Environmental Engineering (5/03-5/09) ENGR
Patricia B. Hoyer, Physiology (5/04-5/10) COM
Charles Hutchinson, Arid Lands Studies (5/06-5/09) CALS
Jennifer L. Jenkins, Media Arts (5/07-5/10) COFA
Ana Maria Merico, Law (5/08-5/11) LAW
Susan Wilson-Sanders, University Animal Care (5/06-5/09) NON
The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) shall have jurisdiction to make inquiry in two general areas: 1) matters involving contractual agreements between members of the General Faculty and the University/Board of Regents; and 2) internal matters relating to grievances against or by any member of the General Faculty. Protection of academic freedom and tenure is a principal obligation of CAFT. CAFT shall review, investigate or hold hearings, as necessary.
1. Seven cases were heard during the year in formal hearing processes. These are summarized as follows:
A. COMPLAINT: Denial of promotion, procedural violations in the review, which led to denial of due process.
CAFT FINDINGS and Recommendations: Panel found several procedural irregularities, but these did not rise to the level of procedural violations or violation of due process. Panel recommended to uphold denial of promotion but also made multiple recommendations about the department and college’s P&T criteria, guidelines and process.
PRESIDENT’S DECISION: Pending
B. COMPLAINT: Inequitable compensation, infringement on academic freedom in that Grievant’s responsibilities and term/conditions of employment were affected; the practices and procedures practiced by the Department Head were unfair and retaliatory, and reflected by unfair teaching assignments.
CAFT FINDINGS and Recommendations: The Panel found no grounds for denial or violation of academic freedom but rather an unacceptable level of disrespect and a lack of compassion for a venerable member of its department, college, and profession. Panel also found that the department did not adhere to University procedures and urged that departmental procedures be modified immediately to rectify the situation. The Panel also recommended that the College of Engineering be required to adopt processes and written bylaws that are consistent with UHAP and ABOR.
PRESIDENT’S DECISION: President upheld CAFT’s findings that Grievant’s academic freedom was not violated and he was not discriminated against by the Department Head.
C. COMPLAINT: Concerned a disagreement with Director over a one-time course reduction, the Director siding with another faculty member in a dispute between Grievant and faculty member, and Director forbidding Grievant to serve on college or University committees. Grievant contended that arbitrary application of University policy, regulation or procedure interfered with her “ability to carry out my responsibilities, and with the terms and conditions of employment.”
CAFT FINDINGS: It was extremely difficult to conduct an orderly hearing because the Grievant exhibited highly disruptive and disrespectful behavior throughout. She was repeatedly admonished to not interrupt by speaking out, yet she persisted throughout the entire proceeding and refused to conduct herself in a mature manner that respected the hearing process. Transcripts of the hearing will support this opinion.
The Panel found no evidence that the Respondent had overstepped his administrative responsibilities in resolving issues raised by the Grievant that were related to the teaching assignments or her appointment as Graduate Studies advisor. No evidence of arbitrary application of University policy to these decisions was found. Several recommendations were made by the Panel regarding the Grievant’s departmental affiliation and encouragement for her to reconcile with individuals with whom she has conflict.
PRESIDENT’S DECISION: The President agreed with the Panel findings and concluded that the Director had not made arbitrary or discriminatory application of University policy, regulations or procedures, which applied personally to the Grievant had infringed on her privileges, responsibilities, or terms and conditions of employment. Regarding suggestions by the Panel regarding departmental affiliation, these were “outside the scope of this CAFT complaint.” He suggested that the Grievant could pursue the Panel’s recommendations. The Grievant appealed the President’s decision and the President did not change his stance. He provided her information necessary to pursue her case through the courts ( Superior Court Administrative Review Act, A.R.S. § 12-901 et. seq.)
D. COMPLAINT: Irregularities in the department head search process and procedures and inequitable compensation (paid, one-year research leave) for outgoing head.
CAFT FINDINGS: Panel found that there were no procedural violations and no University policy or procedure regarding searches appears to have been violated in the search for Department Head on the part of Dean or the Search Committee. Deans have the authority to grant faculty members and administrators research leave as negotiated and the Panel noted that it is standard practice to give outgoing administrators leave. Although the Panel made no recommendations for further action in this case, it urged that attention be given to addressing and reducing the tensions among the Department's subfields.
PRESIDENT’S DECISION: Pending
E. COMPLAINT: The Grievant had concerns related to his treatment following his return to faculty status following service as Director of his program. These included salary and teaching assignments.
CAFT FINDINGS: The Panel has not completed its report to the President.
PRESIDENT’S DECISION: He has not received the report as of this date.
F. COMPLAINT: Third-year non-renewal, case is pending. The case is currently at Conciliation.
CAFT FINDINGS: NA
PRESIDENT’S DECISION: NA
G. COMPLAINT: The complaint was based upon concerns regarding teaching and scholarship, which fall under the By-Laws of the General Faculty Grievance Procedures.
CAFT FINDINGS: Hearing is beginning to commence
PRESIDENT’S DECISION: NA
2. CAFT received several inquires during the year. These are summarized as follows:
Professor of Architecture: Concerns with tenure review of a junior faculty member and with the handling of several courses within his department. No case has been forthcoming.
Assistant Professor of Architecture: Regarding denial of tenure. Case went to Conciliation and there has been no further communication.
Faculty member, College of Medicine: Regarding potential age discrimination and other issues. A case was not brought forward.
Faculty member, College of Medicine: Regarding denial of promotion and a discrimination allegation. Formal grievance was not filed.
Assistant Professor, Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences: Denial of tenure. Case did not progress to CAFT.
A faculty member was concerned with a member of his P&T committee making inappropriate demands of him. No case has been presented.
College of Medicine faculty member (research professor) received non-renewal. She was advised that formal hearing process does not apply to year-to- year professionals.
A faculty member is concerned with harassment by another faculty member. Chair suggested use of UHAP 6.02
3. In addition to assisting faculty members, as listed above, the committee participated in several other projects during the year. These included:
A. Meeting with President Shelton and Jacqueline Mok
CAFT members were invited to meet with President Shelton on August 21, 2008 to discuss the role of CAFT in faculty governance and concerns that had arisen as a result of cases heard by CAFT. Following the meeting with the President and the Chief of Staff, the Chair of CAFT and Ms. Bridgmon met with the Chief of Staff, the University’s General Counsel and other members of the Counsel’s office. The issues discussed and the results of discussion are as follows:
1. Attorney involvement in CAFT hearings
CAFT had been struggling to find ways to maintain the distinction between its mandated roles as a non-judicial hearing body versus normal judicial procedures while embodying the right of grievants to have the advice of an attorney. The widespread impression among CAFT members is that the involvement of legal counsel has hugely increased the time and cost of CAFT hearings, while making them much more like the procedures of courts of law rather than the special inquiries of professional peers envisioned in both the Faculty Constitution and Bylaws, and the ABOR Policy Manual.
As a result, CAFT was advised to initiate a pre-hearing conference process. These meetings include the Grievant, the Respondent, the Hearing Panel Chair and staff of the Faculty Center. The case is reviewed and the complaint summarized. Time limits are set for the hearing (presentation of the Grievant’s case and the response to it) and times for submission of materials and witness lists. In some cases, the pre-hearing conference is used to help resolve issues with the potential of elimination the formal hearing. CAFT was encouraged to establish its own rules and procedures, with appropriate faculty and administrative approval, to counteract the very natural tendency of lawyers to revert to the procedures with which they are familiar.
Additionally, Dr. Shelton appointed Dr. Mok to serve as an administrative contact to “encourage” faculty to provide their materials or comply with grievance hearing procedures (such as appearing before CAFT).
Action Item: We also discussed that the Faculty Constitution, Bylaws, UHAP, and ABOR policies need to be reviewed and synchronized.
Action Item: We discussed the selection of attorneys for CAFT. Recently, CAFT has not been given the ability to select its attorney. Some attorneys assigned to CAFT have been excellent; others have not. The General Counsel worked with the Chair of CAFT to create a list of attorneys from which CAFT can select (based on Bylaws, Section 5. b.(6)(b)).
2. Definition of Academic Freedom
The vagueness of the definitions of Academic Freedom that are in ABOR and University policy has caused problems in faculty grievance proceedings. To address concerns, a subcommittee was assigned the task of developing a draft definition of Academic Freedom for The University of Arizona. Many of our peer institutions have such definitions (several examples were provided in the meeting). The definition developed by CAFT was sent to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to be routed to the Faculty Senate for its endorsement and inclusion in UHAP or the faculty governance handbook. However, some members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee felt strongly that the draft definition should be reviewed and approved by a variety of stakeholders including President Shelton, the Provost and the Office of the General Counsel before coming to the floor of the Senate.
Action Item: CAFT recommended that the definition of Academic Freedom be more substantial and, as a first step, brought its draft for the UA, along with other peer definitions, to the President for his review and comment. CAFT has not received further follow-up on this subject.
3. Standards for P&T/CS
Several years ago, CAFT had recommended to President Likins that training should be provided for all levels of P&T/CS committees and department heads to standardize the way cases are handled. This recommendation went through the Academic Personnel Policy Committee to the Senate, which passed a resolution and asked Vice Provost Garcia to implement this training. In April 2008, training for committees and department heads was initiated.
However, CAFT continues to see problems related to P&T/CS process. There are conflicting guidelines promulgated for the PT/CS process. Problems related to inconsistencies in P&T standards and the review process in departments led to cases heard by CAFT in 2007-2009. Improving consistency in standards throughout the University for PT/CS review would decrease the number of aggrieved faculty, assist administrators in providing better support to their junior faculty, and reduce the caseload of grievance committees.
Action Items: The President indicated that the VP for Faculty Affairs should be directed to go to Deans to see if Department Heads are being consistent in their PT/CS reviews. CAFT might be included to ensure a “reality check;” it was also recommended that the University PT and CS Standing Committees could be involved in the process. CAFT members recommended the CALS process as being consistent and clear. College of Medicine also has a strong process and could serve as another model. Once a review across campus is made, and changes made as needed, training should be provided to all stake holders. CAFT has received no follow-up on this issue.
4. CAFT Case Trends
CAFT members expressed concerns with trends in results of cases being upheld/not upheld by the President. In the past (more than 6-8 years ago), most times when CAFT recommended in favor of the Grievant, the President upheld the CAFT decision. During the past 5 years, when CAFT has recommended in favor of the Grievant, the majority of these cases have not been upheld. In contrast, when CAFT recommends for the Respondent, these cases are upheld. This trend has disheartened CAFT members who work diligently to find the truth and make their recommendation. There was discussion that the Kimble case has led to this reversal in trend; the fact is that many CAFT cases become less of a “peer” process and more “legal.” The President indicated that he closely reads all material and respects the work of CAFT. He encouraged CAFT members to continue their work, as he greatly appreciates the effort that CAFT makes in support of members of the University community.
B. Meetings with Faculty Leadership
The Chair of CAFT met with staff of the Faculty Center and with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Faculty to discuss issues related to the exclusion of year-to-year contract professionals from ability to file under the formal grievance hearing process. These academic professionals are not considered members of the General Faculty, and thus their access to the processes of Conciliation and CAFT are limited.
Members of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure and staff of the Faculty Center had a very busy year. CAFT’s work could not have been completed without the cooperation and support of the personnel of the Faculty Center. Their efforts are very much appreciated, particularly those of Pamela Bridgmon involving the scheduling and services-procurement needed during CAFT hearings. She works many days of long hours and is certainly a crucial resource for The University of Arizona faculty in general, and we of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure thank her.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Wilson-Sanders, Chair 2008-2009
Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure
This site maintained by The
University of Arizona Faculty Center
1216 E. Mabel Street PO Box 210456
Tucson, AZ 85721-0456
VOICE 520-621-1342 FAX 520-621-8844
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated
08/05/09